Skills used by players on other players.

[Bawylie]

Counterpoint, if the player tells you the skill/tool/proficiency being used, **that also** brings with it the linkage to actions taken.

If the player says rolling perception that says looking, if they say check with tools, thats touching fiddling etc. Quite possibly DCs are different, definitely risks and outcomes different.

Thats where i get amused at the rigid "GM chooses checks, players shall not" when the go with how approach reveals type of check - it works both ways.

Both can work well, both can botch usually on the same ground - do the players and gm have the same understanding of what skills and tools and such cover or do they have different expectatiins.

How about if you don’t even use skills? Ability checks only doesn’t quite cover every approach without further clarification.

Use of thieves’ tools might, as you suggest, indicate a particular approach. Does a dex check? Int check?

 

[billd91]

There needs to be a meaningful consequence of failure in order for there to be an ability check because that's one of the two criteria by which the DM calls for a roll. It's up to the DM to decide what that means in context though, so reasonable people can disagree on what is or isn't meaningful in the abstract.

That's your take on it - but 5e seems pretty agnostic on that as an issue. The focus I'm seeing isn't on there being meaningful consequences for failure - just uncertainty in the outcome.

 

[Ratskinner]

Well, you've said that your group uses the ability scores of the PC to inform how that PC should be roleplayed. But, here you're saying that your group prefers roleplaying to be determined in-play, which ability scores are not -- any less than traits, bonds, etc., are. There seems to be a contradiction. Maybe.

I meant things like personality traits, and the subtler aspects of character. The group is mostly really old-schoolers, they don't get attached to characters until at least three levels of play. They don't mind the mechanical aspects of Backgrounds (for example the skills and the minor non-combat bennie), but then they all but ignore what it should or could imply for the character's attitude. OTOH, they will look at a set of ability scores and derive quite a bit about how that character might be played. (Oddly, this attitude seems to only apply to D&D and games like it.) So, let's say a character misses some save vs. spider venom, they might then endow that character with a fear of spiders. When a character is "young" they play it rather loosely with regard to personaility, but build it during play. However, once established, they don't seem to mind playing it up. I don't know if that helps make it any clearer.

 

[iserith]

That's your take on it - but 5e seems pretty agnostic on that as an issue. The focus I'm seeing isn't on there being meaningful consequences for failure - just uncertainty in the outcome.

See DMG, page 237: "Only call for a roll if there is a meaningful consequence of failure."

 

[Ratskinner]

Because the DM in the first case is using that power to essentially declare actions for the PC -- or, at least, very much limit the available choices of the PC. In combat, things happen to the PC, but the player still always get to choose what it is the PC tries to do next. In the persuade case, you're categorically removing possibilities of what the player can choose to try to do with their PC.

hmmm....I think I play it differently than you think. I do not dictate the players actions, however I will tell them what they might believe/perceive about a situation. So, for example, if the Barbarian gets convinced (via Persuasion) that helping the villagers should be their priority...that's what I tell the player. "He's convinced you that the village must be defended first." How, they want to respond to that is up to them. The persuading player doesn't get to dictate actions to the persuaded character. This is, to me, no different than (possibly false) sensory information for a player, or conveying world-information about the character's religion etc.

And I have seen different reactions to such situations. The persuaded character can still be mad/resentful about it. They might throw it back at the persuader: "Fine! You're in charge and this is on your head. What's the plan, genius?" Alternatively, they might begrudgingly accept the persuasion and take charge themselves: "You're right about the village, but I don't wanna get killed, so here's how we're doing it...."

All that being said, I do think D&D's way of handling social interactions is rather clunky.

 

[billd91]

See DMG, page 237: "Only call for a roll if there is a meaningful consequence of failure."

Notice also the page before it where there are other die rolling suggestions discussed, as well as page 174 of the Players Handbook which pretty much just highlights uncertainty. Given the variety of approaches mentioned, I'd still say the edition's pretty agnostic on the issue.

 

[5ekyu]

How about if you don’t even use skills? Ability checks only doesn’t quite cover every approach without further clarification.

Use of thieves’ tools might, as you suggest, indicate a particular approach. Does a dex check? Int check?

If they dont specify a skill, that's the same as the other side not specifying an approach, you ask for more info. Both sides require info to work, not claiming otherwise.

But the "players says words about approach that lead to defining check (if needed)" is not functionally significantly different imo to raise all the ire it foes for some when compared to "players state skills used that leads to defining approach taken".

 

[iserith]

Notice also the page before it where there are other die rolling suggestions discussed, as well as page 174 of the Players Handbook which pretty much just highlights uncertainty. Given the variety of approaches mentioned, I'd still say the edition's pretty agnostic on the issue.

I would say that the PHB and the DMG work together here which is why you will almost always see me quote both. And the methods described in the previous section are simply a matter of difference for the respective DMs as to what is uncertain and what is meaningful. Only one of those methods, however, is without potential drawbacks at least according to the DMG.

 

[5ekyu]

Notice also the page before it where there are other die rolling suggestions discussed, as well as page 174 of the Players Handbook which pretty much just highlights uncertainty. Given the variety of approaches mentioned, I'd still say the edition's pretty agnostic on the issue.

Yup. PHB specifically provides for ability scores the option of just not making progress or some progress with setback.

Also the part of the dmg there about consequence of failure is given context by the paragraph it finishes and the immediately following bullet point questions.

The former puts it as a conclusion of examples of tasks too easy to fail.
The following bullets spotlight the when to roll criteria as basically can succeed and can fail both being true - just stated as inelegantly as double negatives. No mention of consequences there at all.

So, they provide three approaches and the middle ground is simply listed as one many use, but even it doesn't list consequences in its "if both are no" criteria.

But if someone wants to find sentences to support pretty much whatever they want, picking a sentence here or another there and ignoring the rests has a time honored traditional basis - in a lot of belief systems.

 

[Ovinomancer]

hmmm....I think I play it differently than you think. I do not dictate the players actions, however I will tell them what they might believe/perceive about a situation. So, for example, if the Barbarian gets convinced (via Persuasion) that helping the villagers should be their priority...that's what I tell the player. "He's convinced you that the village must be defended first." How, they want to respond to that is up to them. The persuading player doesn't get to dictate actions to the persuaded character. This is, to me, no different than (possibly false) sensory information for a player, or conveying world-information about the character's religion etc.

And I have seen different reactions to such situations. The persuaded character can still be mad/resentful about it. They might throw it back at the persuader: "Fine! You're in charge and this is on your head. What's the plan, genius?" Alternatively, they might begrudgingly accept the persuasion and take charge themselves: "You're right about the village, but I don't wanna get killed, so here's how we're doing it...."

All that being said, I do think D&D's way of handling social interactions is rather clunky.

But, you just described limiting the player options just as I said happens. The PC reaction cannot be "whatever, I ignore them and do what I want." This differs from being grappled, say, where the PC could still say that and attempt to walk away only to fail automatically. This is saying that the PC cannot even contemplate such actions and the player is so constrained in action declarations.

That said, it's not horrible that you do so. I disagree, but I don't play at your table. Again, I'm going to make the strongest points possible, as I did when I played almost exactly like you (I distinctly recall making the argument above almost verbatim).

I discovered that, for me and my table at least, the game git better when I stopped trying to police my PCs. I found I was running NPC persuasion as a plot device to chivvy around my players. Effectively, it was pretty blatant use of DM force. So, I've stopped. If the players don't believe the NPC or aren't persuaded, great! The story will now move in that direction. I don't need to force the players because I don't have a preset story that needs to happen. This isn't to say that not agreeing can't have horrible consequences, but those will at least be the choice of the players, not me.

Letting go of the reigns was hard. I'd never played otherwise. I enjoy it more, now. I hardily recommend playing one of the PbtA games -- Dungeon World, Apocalypse World, Blades in the Dark (my choice of poison); the very different play while still dealing with familiar tropes is eye-opening for what's possible. 5e does not lend itself to the same play as PbtA -- the systems incentivize differently -- but some of the core play guidelines do cross over: hold on lightly -- be willing to change your plans easily; be a fan of the PCs -- be happy when the PCs succeed, enjoy their foiables; bring the pain -- put the PCs in hard places, up the ante, put the things the PCs love in peril. These translate pretty well.